In creating software, everything in the design ultimately has to be solved. So question then becomes “who is going to solve it?”
In developing software, the following has to be done, in some capacity, by someone.
A) dream it,
B) define it, and
C) physically create it (code it).
The questions is where you insert yourself in the process, and where does the coder take over.
The amophic design approach can easily take you through Part A. But they cannot take you through Part B, at least not completely. And on sites like Upwork, finding developers that can perform part C is a lot easier than finding developers to do Part B and Part C, or at least a lot cheaper.
My position is that the further Balsamiq’s tool take the defining and decision making of the software design out of the hands of the coders, the better. And while it would be wonderful to live the dream of clicking one button and have Balsamiq generate the final Xcode, something as simple as font selection is something that I feel is personal to the application, and is one thing most people mocking up their apps can get their head around. Seems to me it is a waste of time to have a volley of terribly developed IPA files where the fonts were poorly selected by the developer because they could not figure out the mockup fonts (arguably due to incompetence or laziness… yes you get what you pay for).
Here is some real-world feedback after I provided them “strong guidance” after their second “way off the mark” try at properly recreating the presented mockup.
In general, I have found that the less I leave to the coder’s imagination (i.e., the closer I can get to the the one-button-to-create-final-Xcode), the better. Being able to specify the exact font, look and feel, results in my receiving the exact font, look and feel. I should not have to debate with the coder about such a simple, ubiquitous thing.